The biggest metabolic advantage I can think of is;
Carbs elicit an anabolic response from the body, Fats elicit a catabolic response. Proteins elicit a neutral response.

For a while after eating carbs it is difficult for the body to remove energy from storage cells. To liberate fat and glucose the body needs glucagon. Carbs turn off glucagon. Someone that predominately ate carbs all day, then switched to low carb, will probably see a large metabolic advantage effect.

It is not the calories, all calories are basically equal, it is the body's different response to different macros.

See the problem there? Only thing that makes sense is the ketone angle.

Ketosis is a state the body has adapted to survive periods of extreme starvation. That is it. It is a method of supplementing glucose to the brain so the body doesn't consume lean mass (organs, muscles, connective tissue) as rapidly because gluconeogenesis is extremely catabolic and stressful. Since gluconeogenesis uses cortisol to break down the body into glucose, ketones help alleviate that severe stress.

That is it. If anything, ketosis slows the metabolism. Hunger suppression is a natural side effect because if you are starving, your body tries to conserve energy, and from a natural standpoint, the only time the body would be in ketosis is when the food supply was bordering on starvation-levels. Forced ketosis is some new, weird, modern thing, which flies in the face of "paleo." Isn't it ironic?

On the opposite end of the spectrum, diets high in protein and carbohydrate stimulate the metabolism. However, they also tend to stimulate hunger to go along with the rise in metabolism.

In short, diets high in carbohydrate and low in fat tend to promote a more rapid metabolic rate than diets high in fat and very low in carbohydrate, but you'll probably be hungrier on the former diet than the latter - it is a consequence of the faster metabolism.

But it isn't all that extreme of a difference. CICO is still gospel - you can't lose weight without an energy deficit, so you should be trying to eat the most nutritious diet possible that allows you to maintain the greatest deficit. Chasing after some "metabolic advantage" is fruitless because the thermic effect of food, while existing, is only in the 5-10% range and that really isn't going to make that big of a difference. The only time the story changes is if you're going to eat straight protein with no fat and carbs, but has anyone tried to do that for more than 2 or 3 days straight? It is almost impossible mentally. The reason why the "low carbohydrate metabolic advantage" nonsense was so incredibly stupid is it stated that calories don't count if insulin is low. Absolutely ridiculous since the body doesn't need insulin to store dietary fat as fat.

Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 09-30-2013 at 07:08 AM.

Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

My n=1: eat like warrior; look like warrior. Eat like rabbit; look like rabbit. :::grunt::: I will now go discover fire.

I humbly think something is missing here: "eat like warrior" AND "behave /move like a warrior" will probably lead to "look like warrior". I have the feeling that missing the condition I added will make you "look like fat rabbit" ...

Ketosis is a state the body has adapted to survive periods of extreme starvation. That is it. It is a method of supplementing glucose to the brain so the body doesn't consume lean mass (organs, muscles, connective tissue) as rapidly because gluconeogenesis is extremely catabolic and stressful. Since gluconeogenesis uses cortisol to break down the body into glucose, ketones help alleviate that severe stress.

That is it. If anything, ketosis slows the metabolism. Hunger suppression is a natural side effect because if you are starving, your body tries to conserve energy, and from a natural standpoint, the only time the body would be in ketosis is when the food supply was bordering on starvation-levels. Forced ketosis is some new, weird, modern thing, which flies in the face of "paleo." Isn't it ironic?

On the opposite end of the spectrum, diets high in protein and carbohydrate stimulate the metabolism. However, they also tend to stimulate hunger to go along with the rise in metabolism.

In short, diets high in carbohydrate and low in fat tend to promote a more rapid metabolic rate than diets high in fat and very low in carbohydrate, but you'll probably be hungrier on the former diet than the latter - it is a consequence of the faster metabolism.

But it isn't all that extreme of a difference. CICO is still gospel - you can't lose weight without an energy deficit, so you should be trying to eat the most nutritious diet possible that allows you to maintain the greatest deficit. Chasing after some "metabolic advantage" is fruitless because the thermic effect of food, while existing, is only in the 5-10% range and that really isn't going to make that big of a difference. The only time the story changes is if you're going to eat straight protein with no fat and carbs, but has anyone tried to do that for more than 2 or 3 days straight? It is almost impossible mentally. The reason why the "low carbohydrate metabolic advantage" nonsense was so incredibly stupid is it stated that calories don't count if insulin is low. Absolutely ridiculous since the body doesn't need insulin to store dietary fat as fat.

I once did he velocity diet (only protein shakes) for 11 days. Horrible.

I agree with above. One thing though that people dont seem to realize when talking about CICO and macro ratios is that certain diets elicit a much different metabolic response BECAUSE of the macro ratios and calories.

Example, VLC diets usually suppress hunger like you said, they also lower metabolism and thyroid production to save energy since GNG is so demanding. So while you might eat much lower calories, you will also burn much less, couple that with malnutrition from such low calorie intake and suboptimal digestion, eventually CICO will catch up to your low calorie input and you will just be set up in a new lower functioning metabolism, unable to lose weight.

Second example. VHC, high protein, may lead to a much higher calorie consumption due to increased energy production and a highly sped up thyroid and digestive system but at the same time you are using the energy efficiently, getting ample nutrition and setting your system up for a high gear metabolism.

The two may let you lose the same amount of fat initially but long run, it seems clear to me is health promoting and which is metabolic death to be blunt. Of course variables, variables, variables, but the first example is very common in less knowledgeable, inexperienced and sometimes veteran low carbers (Moore).

To my mind, the best is to eat with the natural amount of fats found in real foods and if you get ample amounts of proteins via meat and dairy, the fat should be there (unless you go for low fat stuff, which is not very natural in this case). That should cover most of your fat needs and it makes things tasty. More than that ? Maybe if you need a keto diet for some reasons other than weight loss (you can grow fat on a keto diet).

I once did he velocity diet (only protein shakes) for 11 days. Horrible.

I agree with above. One thing though that people dont seem to realize when talking about CICO and macro ratios is that certain diets elicit a much different metabolic response BECAUSE of the macro ratios and calories.

Example, VLC diets usually suppress hunger like you said, they also lower metabolism and thyroid production to save energy since GNG is so demanding. So while you might eat much lower calories, you will also burn much less, couple that with malnutrition from such low calorie intake and suboptimal digestion, eventually CICO will catch up to your low calorie input and you will just be set up in a new lower functioning metabolism, unable to lose weight.

Second example. VHC, high protein, may lead to a much higher calorie consumption due to increased energy production and a highly sped up thyroid and digestive system but at the same time you are using the energy efficiently, getting ample nutrition and setting your system up for a high gear metabolism.

The two may let you lose the same amount of fat initially but long run, it seems clear to me is health promoting and which is metabolic death to be blunt. Of course variables, variables, variables, but the first example is very common in less knowledgeable, inexperienced and sometimes veteran low carbers (Moore).

On thing I think people need to accept is that "abs lean" is not the norm. It just isn't going to be able to be maintained by 90+% of us. Even contest dieters who cut to absolutely obscene levels of body fat that allow you to see every striation of the human body do so over 12 weeks. They're not "ripped" the other 40 weeks out of the year. They tend to carry the "12% body fat pooch" - you can make out your abs when you flex and have fat around the belly button unflexed. You'll have a little jiggle when you run. That's normal and that's healthy.

If you look how body builders cut, though, the first thing to go is fat. They generally eat on the order of ~40-50% protein, around 20% fat with the other 30-40% carbohydrate, bulked before and after their workouts. Calories are often averaging a 20-25% deficit. You can mentally get by eating that way when you know you only have to do it for 2-3 months and it's over for the rest of the year, but to do that all the time to maintain a very lean physique is just ridiculous. I learned a long time ago that I will bounce between 11-15% off and on. That's just how it goes for me. Could I cut lower? Yea, but the diet monotony isn't worth the mental stress to see minor physical changes. It isn't worth taking chocolate, ice cream, alcohol and great cuts of steak completely out of my diet.

Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

I humbly think something is missing here: "eat like warrior" AND "behave /move like a warrior" will probably lead to "look like warrior". I have the feeling that missing the condition I added will make you "look like fat rabbit" ...

Absolutely! I was going for brevity.

"Right is right, even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it." - St. Augustine